Emerging technologies like bioengineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and geoengineering have great promise for humanity, but they also come with great peril. They could revolutionize everything from pollution control to human health—imagine a bioengineered microbe that converts CO2 into automobile-worthy liquid fuels, or nanotechnologies that target cancer cells.

But they also pose the potential to cause a global catastrophe in which millions or even billions of people die.

Effective public policy can help us enjoy the benefits while protecting against the risks. But one hallmark of these technologies is that they can be developed anywhere around the world. And so, as Grant previously wrote, an international treaty could be the most effective way to safely develop emerging technologies. Furthermore, different technologies pose many of the same policy challenges. And so, as Seth previously wrote, a streamlined approach would regulate different emerging technologies under a single governance regime.

Given the goal of establishing a new international treaty for emerging technologies, the question then becomes: How? Does one gallop to the gates of Buckingham Palace, quill and parchment in hand, and bark at the royal guard to fetch the Queen?

There are a variety of options on how to conclude a treaty on emerging technologies, and none of them are easy. Here is a quick review of some treaty-making options in case any readers feel ambitious this week.

U.N. General Assembly. The General Assembly is the U.N.’s primary policymaking body and the most common source of global treaties. Oftentimes, the General Assembly directly opens a treaty up for signature. Other times they initiate a process that leads to a treaty, such as by establishing an international conference or a subsidiary body that hashes out treaty text. However, getting to the big stage is incredibly difficult; only a country in the U.N. or certain U.N. bodies can put items on the agenda. So unless you are cozy with some heads of state, getting an emerging technologies treaty on the agenda will probably require working your way up through other U.N. bodies.

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). ECOSOC is a major U.N. body that covers international economic, social, cultural, health, and environmental issues, so their scope certainly includes emerging technologies that will have pervasive effects on humans and the environment. ECOSOC is civil society heaven, with over 3,500 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) having some sort of consultative status. However, NGO power is limited: like the U.N. General Assembly, only a U.N. country can propose treaty text in ECOSOC. Nor is ECOSOC a treaty-making heavyweight like the General Assembly, so it might not be the best option. On the other hand, ECOSOC could create a subsidiary body that works on emerging technologies treaty text that ECOSOC later proposes to the General Assembly, although this would likely take massive political pressure to achieve.

World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO, a specialized agency of the U.N., is responsible for global health issues. The WHO already works on some emerging technology issues like genetic engineering and nanotechnology, often in conjunction with other U.N. bodies like the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. However, only one treaty has ever been concluded under the auspices of the WHO: the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. And the scope of some emerging technologies like geoengineering and Artificial Intelligence are outside the scope of their public health mandate. Finally, the WHO has tough budget constraints right now, so they are unlikely to spearhead a major emerging technologies campaign. Therefore, the WHO is a plausible but unlikely candidate to handle a treaty on emerging technologies.

U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO is a specialized agency in the U.N. that works extensively on emerging technologies within its mandate of social and human sciences. For example, UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) consists of 18 scholars who hash out ethical principles related to climate change, disaster prevention, nanotechnology, and other areas. A significant number of treaties have also been concluded under the auspices of UNESCO, although most relate to non-contentious issues such as education and cultural heritage, and UNESCO typically promotes “soft” (i.e., non legally binding) law rather than legally binding treaties. Overall, UNESCO is an excellent organization to discuss the impacts of emerging technologies but is unlikely to draft an emerging technologies treaty.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD, an international economic organization with 34 Member countries, strives to enhance global economic and social welfare. The OECD already works on emerging technologies like nanotechnology and bioengineering (including synthetic biology), and they have significant scientific and economic clout. However, one major limitation of the OECD is the exclusive membership—34 developed countries, compared to 193 U.N. member states—so global participation is difficult right from the get go. On the other hand, OECD is slowly increasing membership and also hosts Global Forums in areas like biotechnology and sustainable development that includes non-member countries, so they are a reasonable fallback if a more global organization is an implausible choice.

New international body. Perhaps the best option is to create a new international body whose mission is to explore the benefits, risks, ethics, and so forth related to emerging technologies. The body could then eventually transition into drafting a treaty. Since international organizations like UNEP and the WHO imperfectly cover global catastrophic risks from emerging technologies, a new international body would be able to include participation from several such bodies. NGOs, experts, and other stakeholders could become intimately involved, as well. This new international body could either be created by an existing international organization—for example, ECOSOC created the U.N. Forum on Forests, which aims to create a legal framework for forests—or though an international conference, like the recent Earth Summit 2012 in Rio de Janeiro.

Another example is the Strategic Approach for International Chemical Management (SAICM), a multi-stakeholder international policy framework that is co-chaired by UNEP and the WHO and which allows for broad NGO participation. And despite their focus on chemicals, SAICM has a broad mandate that includes many emerging policy issues—they recently looked at nanotechnology, for example—which even makes them a candidate to create a body that could work on an emerging technologies treaty.

Of course, creating a treaty is not easy. In addition to being a massive organizational and technical challenge, the international community suffers from a case of treaty fatigue. For example, some developing countries lack the resources to administer more treaties, while some developed countries disfavor international law or do not want to divert more money into treaty obligations. Overcoming these hurdles requires relentless campaigning, an imminent threat from emerging technologies, the occurrence of a global catastrophe (which nobody wants), or other forces that could create the requisite political will. Whatever pathway the international community decides to take, they should do so in the relatively near future so that dangerous emerging technologies do not put the planet in unnecessary peril.

I think the idea of pursuing an international treaty and especially a separate international entity as part of the UN to deal with the question of global catastrophic risks is a fantastic one and I am totally on board with such efforts.

I do worry, however, about a number of hurtles to this approach and am curious if you or anyone else you know of knows of a way these hurtles might be overcome.

A good model for establishing shared standards regarding emerging technologies through international treaties might be current treaties that ban the use of landmines and chemical weapons though neither of these are without flaws.

I think the wall we will have to climb when it comes to establishing shared standards on emerging technologies are twofold and amount to differences in culture and what might be called “technological arbitrage” and we can see examples of both all around us.

The effects of culture can be seen in the way something like genetic engineering is being pursued. There is a great deal of suspicion of GMOs in Europe and corresponding laws to regulate their use while the US is a leader in such products and pursues their use in agriculture full-stop. The West with its experience of the horrors of Nazi eugenics seared deeply into its consciousness is very suspicious of the genetic engineering of humans, but if Geoffrey Miller over at The Edge is right, China is highly committed to developing and using such technologies: http://www.edge.org/responses/q2013 (By the way, this issue of the Edge’s annual question is “What are you most worried about?” would be of interest to anyone thinking about the question of global catastrophic risks) China’s embrace of human genetic engineering is also an example of technological arbitrage the second wall between us and shared standards to regulating emerging technologies.

Not to pick on China which is only the most publicly noticeable example of technological arbitrage but you can see this is the current crisis over China’s internet based spying. Emerging countries seem to have a rational incentive to tap into emerging technologies to close the gap between them and technologically tear one countries and may as a consequence be less reticent about potential threats from such technologies. In addition, a lead country such as the United States has a rational interest of keeping its technological edge by investing in emerging technologies despite their dangers. In the end these questions reflect security concerns. Something we see in yet another example of technology being used as a form or arbitrage- the development by relatively weak countries- North Korea, Iran- of nuclear weapons technologies.

Any international treaty or organization that aimed regulating emerging technologies would have to reflect a global effort to resolve underlying power and security dynamics along with cultural barriers that drive and structure them. Given the dangers of emerging technologies to the human future this is something we need to pursue, but the challenges are high and reflect more than just the question of technology.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. I am Grant Wilson, one of the co-authors, along with Seth Baum.

Glad to hear you are on board with such efforts. Thanks for the tips on the potential model treaties. I have looked at both the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, and they have some interesting elements for emerging technologies. I’ll give a good look to the Ottawa Treaty (the landmine ban treaty), which I have not done yet. While these treaties have some good elements, I think that a combination of international law frameworks and existing national laws on emerging technologies could help shape the contents of an emerging technologies treaty. For example, in the United States, the “Coordinated Framework” is a patchwork of regulations applied to bioengineered organisms, and there are certainly some lessons here that can be applied to an international treaty (e.g. permit requirements for any field release of a bioengineered organism).

The roadblocks you mentioned – differences in culture and “technological arbitrage” – will indeed need to be overcome to create an effective emerging technologies treaty. I would add that religious differences may play a role, as well.

I think that one way the cultural and technological arbitrage problems could be assuaged is to begin with international collaborative efforts on emerging technologies, and a new international organization devoted to emerging technologies could help foster cooperation and build trust. Furthermore, while the United States wants to keep its technological edge and other countries may wish to tap emerging technologies to leap ahead, perhaps a scientific and technological cooperative agreement for emerging technologies would help here. Still, as we know with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear nonproliferation efforts, not even a collaborative international organization, technology sharing, and strict compliance mechanisms is totally effective (e.g. North Korea is still feverishly pursuing nukes). Finally, all countries inevitably want to act in their best interest, so perhaps starting with the low-hanging fruit of the most dangerous technologies—those that could wipe out the planet, for example—could be a good starting point.

Please let me know if you (or anyone else reading this!) have other ideas. I will be working on this issue indefinitely, so I would love to hear more from innovative thinkers. My email is grant@gcrinstitute.org.

Also, we should clarify that this article was written following our crowdfunding campaign ‘Preventing Technological Disaster Through International Treaties’:
http://www.indiegogo.com/emergingtechnologies
See discussion here:
http://gcrinstitute.org/new-ieet-article-on-international-treaties-for-emerging-technologies